tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post5933859046283594940..comments2019-05-09T22:59:27.220-07:00Comments on Talking Brains: Pulvermuller = Wernicke-LichtheimGreg Hickokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16656473495682901613noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-28305457840929702009-07-17T15:48:31.409-07:002009-07-17T15:48:31.409-07:00Friedemann,
You are correct our (HP) model is very...Friedemann,<br />You are correct our (HP) model is very similar to the classical models in spirit. But both models old and new assume widely distributed conceptual representations. What&#39;s ~focal are the binding sites between auditory word representations and those distributed conceptual representations.<br /><br />Clarify something for me. When you say &quot;binding site&quot; do you mean binding site between an acoustic representation of a word and its meaning? Or do you mean binding site between the various sensory-motor components of word meaning, e.g., Wernicke&#39;s visual, auditory, and tactile associations with the concept BELL?Greg Hickokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16656473495682901613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-43636902871907443012009-07-17T11:29:32.341-07:002009-07-17T11:29:32.341-07:00Thanks for the nice discussion of old aphasiologis...Thanks for the nice discussion of old aphasiologists&#39; models and my own contribution. I still believe that Hickok &amp; Poeppel&#39;s lexical binding site is conceptually very close to the Lichtheim Wernicke model - REGARDLESS WHETHER THE BEGRIFFSZENTRUM, B, IS IN ONE OR MANY AREAS. Why should it be ONE binding site, not many, as I am postulating (Pulvermuller, BBS 1999 and elsewhere)? Meanwhile, the evidence for the latter is overwhelming. To account for category-specific semantic activation and deficits (eg for action words), a Neurobiological Model of Language NEEDS to account for DIFFERENTIAL contributions of cortical sites to the processing of words with different meanings. Am I too quick? Check http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/friedemann.pulvermuller/responsetohickokpoeppel.html<br />for a more elaborate explantion.<br /><br />Thanks again and best wishes, <br /><br />Friedemann PulvermüllerFriedemann Pulvermullerhttp://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/friedemann.pulvermuller/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-74415344653569360912008-09-25T20:07:00.000-07:002008-09-25T20:07:00.000-07:00First I thought: OUCH! Then I thought: Geez, since...First I thought: OUCH! Then I thought: Geez, since when is it bad to be compared (even equated) with Wernicke? We should be so lucky!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for the historical perspective here. Very helpful reminder that the 19th century folks had rich ideas, and that most of what we do are just footnotes to these original thinkers.David Poeppelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11733672290716484370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-45785336714934467032008-09-24T15:00:00.000-07:002008-09-24T15:00:00.000-07:00Thanks Greig! I&#39;ve updated the entry with the ...Thanks Greig! I&#39;ve updated the entry with the original figures. <BR/><BR/>Tom, It is true that many people misunderstand the classic theorists in our field. But if you are going to hold up their theory as the standard against which you are going to argue, and you are going to do it repeatedly in high profile journals, you better read the original papers and get it right. Further, Pulvermuller even gets modern authors wrong on this same issue, including Hickok &amp; Poeppel who have (despite what Friedemann says) argued for widely distributed conceptual representations.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Broca, I agree: his views seemed to be very phrenological as opposed to the more dynamic and distributed views of Wernicke.Greg Hickokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16656473495682901613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-31885304012899441892008-09-24T14:40:00.000-07:002008-09-24T14:40:00.000-07:00Lichtheim's original figures are available for fre...Lichtheim's original figures are available for free viewing on the Brain website in a "From the archives" article:<BR/><BR/>http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/129/6/1347Greighttp://www.fmrilab.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048879464910781933.post-45907023446508162852008-09-24T11:22:00.000-07:002008-09-24T11:22:00.000-07:00Very nice. These old neurologists were a lot more ...Very nice. These old neurologists were a lot more sophisticated than they are usually given credit for, obviously because very few people actually read their work. I have some sympathy with Pulvermuller as I bet many undergraduate general psychology lectures still push the simple idea of 'core language' areas for production and comprehension in the brain, and I bet many people working in neuroimaging now in areas other than language still believe this. If he's trying to present his work to a general audience it's important to get the idea across that it's not as simple as Broca's area/Wernicke's area, but there's no reason for him to claim that Wernicke, Lichtheim etc. ever thought it actually was that simple (although from what I've read of his, Broca maybe <I>did</I> think it was, at least for 'the articulation of words').tomnoreply@blogger.com